Public embarrassment for corrective training. When is it too much?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:36:06 -0500

I saw this photo on the Duffle Blog recently, posted via facebook.  There was quite the debate in the comments with some arguing that it is simply corrective training and is perfectly okay, while others stated that it is hazing and completely inappropriate.  Some argue that it is demeaning to the Soldier, while others argue that is the POG mentality of a softer Army.  <div> <div>Personally, I think that no matter whether people think it is hazing or corrective training, it is not professional.  Having served as an 11B for 8 years and as a 35P for the last 6, I would stand by the argument that professionalism is the same regardless of MOS.  As NCOs, we live by a creed that starts out saying "No one is more professional than I.  I am a noncommissioned officer..."  I would love for an NCO who is okay with this to please explain how this is a fine example of professionalism that meets our NCO Creed and Army Values.  If this is the best solution an NCO can come up with, then that is a perfect example of bad leadership and that NCO should not be allowed in our Army.</div></div><div> </div><div>Thats just my $.02, but what do you think?</div>

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Feb 23 at 2014 6:40 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:40:10 -0500

I don't see how this is useful. It over blows the incident and probably as it's already made it onto the internet more harmful than the original incident it was meant to correct. You're right about professionalism, and this clearly isn't it. Just issue the correction, have a reasonable punishment/penalty and move on instead of this childish nonsense.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2014 6:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:41:04 -0500

I think some things need an extra little bit of flair depending on the situation, but this is way overboard. This is humiliating the Soldier, not correcting him, not training him, not making him better. And it looks like a reception center somewhere as if they are inprocessing Soldiers. Is this really what you want a "new boot" to think of the Military he JUST volunteered for?

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2014 6:54 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:54:26 -0500

Not sure what is going on here either but he doesn't look to bothered by the situation as he is still texting on his phone.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2014 7:00 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:00:24 -0500

Is this really an effective disciplinary action for troops that lose their I.D. Card?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2014 7:01 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:01:46 -0500

I think this pushes past what is acceptable. I agree with creative punishment, however we are going beyond and reducing the professional image of the Soldiers. This does not only look bad for the offending Soldier, but it also degrades the unit's image. <div> </div><div>This is one of those times where I feel that the unit has not weighed all options properly. For many, this would be an embarrasment and it would correct the deficiency. For many others, it would potentially lead to an IG complaint. It also increases the likelihood that the punishment will be taken as a joke. </div><div> </div><div>Frankly, I think it is a "swing and a miss."</div>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2014 10:18 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:18:44 -0500

Coming up in the artillery, we had similar if not just more crudely constructed corrective training aids. I remember being late for an appointment to meet my Commander, and having to wear a wall clock around my neck, a soldier that got in trouble for not being able to handle his anger having to wear hulk hands, and a soldier that repeatedly lost his room keys having to wear a huge chain with the keys attached. Was the humiliation deserved? Probably not, but it definitely made me try my best not to be late again. More than a counseling ever would. I don't condone it though, and I'd never do it to one of my soldiers.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2014 10:46 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:46:35 -0500

Right out the regulation TRADOC Reg 350-6 "Corrective training and corrective action are tools available to leaders to rectify minor deficiencies, simple infractions, and less serious breaches of discipline, to focus the attention of Soldiers, and to inspire compliance with Army standards. At no time is corrective action meant to demean, belittle, or embarrass a Soldier. The effective leader knows when to use permissible corrective training and NOT excessive or unauthorized physical activity to coach, teach, train, and mentor Soldiers who are not meeting the standard". Hazing is in opposition to our Army values and is prohibited and why would it be tolerated. How does this corrective training provide purpose, direction and motivation? How does this fall in line with out core leader competencies? it doesn't. <div> </div><div> </div>

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2014 10:56 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:56:39 -0500

Ive never seen anything like that before but I have seen Marines having to hold signs at the ECP's on base for drinking and driving to encourage others not to do the same.  Have a large serialized rock to carry after losing serialized equipment.  Times have changed and I dont see things like this anymore, straight paperwork. 

Response by SrA Zachary Bolling made Feb 24 at 2014 10:58 AM

SrA Zachary Bolling — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:58:33 -0500

It is really hard to take the proper context from this picture. My opinion is that there is a limit and everyone should know when they cross that line. But as a former member of a combat oriented unit I have experience with this kind of situation. This could very well be a unit in which it's a mixture of brotherhood/acceptance and hazing. The unit I was with would only "haze" the people that could handle it and take it as a joke and not an attack. Again, I do not condone this and I do think this is unprofessional but everyone should be aware that situations like this is something that can bring troops closer together and help build camaraderie.

Response by MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2014 10:59 AM

MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:59:49 -0500

I, like many of you who have posted a reply to this thread, have seen this type of correction handed out to Soldiers in the past.  I agree that this particular punishment, and many others like it, are very over the top.   However, sometimes the more creative (albeit less demeaning) punishments do work.   I remember a 1SG who would have a Soldier carry a shave kit with him everywhere during duty hours for an entire week had that Soldier forgotten to shave.  Nothing demeaning or unprofessional about that in my opinion, just a Soldier carrying around an extra piece of gear.  Simply serves to reinforce to the Soldier that not shaving is not acceptable.  I'll tell you this, those that faced that punishment never made the mistake again, and those that saw someone who had to do it realized that they never wanted to have to deal with it either.   Also, I've seen a number of times where Soldiers who were ticketed on post for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt would have to stand on intersection corners holding signs warning other motorists to slow down or buckle up. Soldiers have money, and most could care less about the insignificant fines for traffic violations on post.  However, causing a Soldier to lose what they really value (time) all while putting them out in public to spread the message that others should not make the same mistake sends a powerful message, both to other motorists and to the Soldier who made the mistake in the first place. Many think that this is hazing, but again I see nothing wrong with it.  Honestly, neither did the Soldiers that I have known who have had to do it.  I think that it is vital that a common sense approach be taken to corrective training and creative punishments.  Demeaning someone is definitely not ok, but many times there is more power in a message sent through action rather than just words on a 4856.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2014 6:42 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:42:28 -0500

I'd like to know more about the circumstances; especially where.  When I was in the Infantry, it was common to adorn a soldier late to formation with a Skilcraft wall clock suspended from a loop of 550 cord around the neck.  Think Flavor Flav, but with a really boring clock and in BDUs.  However, this type of corrective action was only acceptable within the Battalion area. Now that I think about it, when I was a rifle squad leader in Germany, one of my soldier's left an M240 on a bus at the range.  He ended up carrying a safety orange painted M16 "rubber duck" in the Battalion area for a week.

Response by SPC Michael Calore made Feb 24 at 2014 7:00 PM

SPC Michael Calore — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:00:20 -0500

This is something I've seen during my time in the US Army.  Now, I've been in the civilian world for about ten years, and I have to say: soldiers and veterans tend to have more accountability and responsibility than many civilians I've met, both personally and institutionally.  I do not doubt this type of corrective action is the reason for it. If one wants to debate appropriateness, remember that college-aged civilians submit themselves to similar rituals when they rush fraternities and sororities.  These sometimes-embarrassing actions tend to usher an important and irreplaceable lesson: your actions effect you, and those you represent... so do it right.

Response by SSG Matthew Thomas made Feb 28 at 2014 2:40 PM

SSG Matthew Thomas — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:40:40 -0500

I remember a fellow trooper left his weapon in the gym and went back to him tent. His corrective training was linking a tow chain to his weapon and his alice pack. This way he understood that the weapon is part of his uniform. <div>Having to wear a cardboard ID card will not help the situation. It will only make the individual disgruntled.</div>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2014 11:52 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:52:34 -0500

Looking at the responses I've seen on here is EXACTLY why I put everything on paper now. Too many soft soldiers going to IG, crying to mommy and daddy, etc. I've tried the new age version of corrective traininer (which does not embarrass, degrade or hurt their fragile feelings) and it doesn't work. I've put it on paper and it doesn't work until rank is taken (which I absolutely hate), and I've tried sitting down and talking with the Soldier. When the Soldier is recommended for reduction based on their actions, the first thing asked is "where are the counselings to support this?" They get away with it, because proper paperwork isn't done. When I try correcting the issue, I'm accused of creating a hostile work environment. That being said, I just put everything on paper now. It covers my back, and when it comes time to get rid of these substandard soldiers, I have the evidence to support it. Soldiers now days seem more apt to try to play the system instead of embracing the basis upon which the Army was founded upon.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 5:02 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 05:02:26 -0500

I know I will get a bit of flak for my response but I see nothing wrong with this corrective training. Would I ever do it to a Soldier. No; not because I don't agree with it but because I am aware of the new softer , gentler, and IG filled Army we live in. I will say this. Not one person has said anything about the fact that this Soldier (real or not) lost a piece of equipment that could essentially get the bad guy access to the places we live and work. That missing ID card could cost American lives. But who cares about that we hurt poor PVT Snuffys feelings and he might be upset.  You put a Soldier on blast and embarrass him in front of his friends two things are going to happen. One he will never do it again and two neither will anyone who saw him do it. SFC Sparks said it great; Soldiers do not care one bit if you write on a piece of paper that they did something wrong.  Back when things like this were common place we didn't have the problems we have in the military today. I am a huge believer that the problems we are having with our image; no morals, no pride and taking advantage of the people around is a direct reflection of the new way we "handle" our people. The new softer and caring military is only producing Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines that don't fear the consequence's. Because there are no consequences.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 5:35 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 05:35:58 -0500

I'd be more inclined to put it on paper then this.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 11:06 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:06:05 -0500

This is a perfect example of hazing ( AR 600-20 Command Policy Hazing • 4–194–20, page 28). 18 years ago  

 4–19.

 (Rescinded.)

 4–20. Hazing

 The Army has been and continues
to be a values-based organization where everyone is encouraged to do what is
right by treating others as they should
be treated—with dignity and respect. Hazing is fundamentally in opposition to
our values and is prohibited.

 a. Definition. Hazing is
defined as any conduct whereby one military member or employee, regardless of
Service or

 rank, unnecessarily causes
another military member or employee, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer
or be exposed

 to an activity that is cruel,
abusive, oppressive, or harmful.

 (1) Hazing includes, but is not
limited, to any form of initiation "rite of passage" or
congratulatory act that involves:

 physically striking another in
order to inflict pain; piercing another’s skin in any manner; forcing or
requiring the

 consumption of excessive amounts
of food, alcohol, drugs, or other substances; or encouraging another to engage
in

 illegal, harmful, demeaning or
dangerous acts. Soliciting or coercing another to participate in any such
activity is also

 considered hazing. Hazing need
not involve physical contact among or between military members or employees; it
can

 be verbal or psychological in
nature.

 (2) When authorized by the chain
of command and not unnecessarily cruel, abusive, oppressive, or harmful, the

 following activities do not
constitute hazing:

 (a) The physical and
mental hardships associated with operations or operational training.

 (b) Administrative
corrective measures, including verbal reprimands and a reasonable number of
repetitions of

 authorized physical exercises.

 (c) Extra military
instruction or training.

 (d) Physical
training (PT) or remedial PT.

 (e) Other similar
activities.

 (3) Whether or not such actions
constitute hazing, they may be inappropriate or violate relevant civilian
personnel

 guidance, depending on the type
of activities and the assigned duties of the employee involved.

 b. Scope. Hazing is not
limited to superior-subordinate relationships. It may occur between peers or
even, under

 certain circumstances, may
involve actions directed towards senior military personnel by those junior in
rank or grade

 to them (for example, a training
instructor hazing a student who is superior in rank). Hazing has at times
occurred

 during graduation ceremonies or
similar military "rites of passage." However, it may also happen in
day-to-day military

 settings. It is prohibited in all
cases, to include off-duty or "unofficial" celebrations or unit
functions. Express or

 implied consent to hazing is not
a defense to violation of this regulation.

 c. Command
responsibilities. Enforcement
of this policy is a responsibility of commanders at all levels. Commanders

 will devote particular attention
to graduation or advancement ceremonies as well as other occasions or settings
that

 might put Soldiers at risk for
voluntary or involuntary hazing. These situations will be supervised properly,
respectful

  AR 600–20 • 18 March 2008/RAR 4 August 2011

 of all participants, perpetuate
the best of the traditions that the Army embraces, and leave all participants
and spectators

 feeling proud to be a member of
or associated with the U.S. Army.

 d. Command
options. This
paragraph is punitive with regards to Soldiers. Violators of this policy may be
subject to

 UCMJ, ART. 92 (Failure to obey a
lawful general order or regulation). Other applicable UCMJ articles include
UCMJ,

 ART. 80 (Attempts), UCMJ, ART. 81
(Conspiracy), UCMJ, ART. 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment), UCMJ, ART. 124

 (Maiming), UCMJ, ART. 128
(Assault), UCMJ, ART. 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), and

 UCMJ, ART. 134 (Drunk and
disorderly conduct, and/or Soliciting another to commit an offense). Civilian
employees

 who violate this policy may also
be subject to adverse action or discipline in accordance with applicable laws
and

 regulations. 18 years ago it was a different Army and times have changed.
This infraction is unacceptable in this man Army! We leaders are failing at
reading, understanding policies and regulations. If you don’t know what is the difference
between HAZING, AND CORRECTIVE TRAINING. EDUCATE YOURSELF (AR600-20). Ignorance
and stubborn is a disease!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2014 11:11 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:11:21 -0500

This is a perfect example of hazing; AR 600-20 4–19.

(Rescinded.)

4–20. Hazing) 18 years ago it was a different Army and times have changed.
This infraction is unacceptable in this man Army! We leaders are failing at
reading, understanding policies and regulations. If you don’t know what is the difference
between HAZING, AND CORRECTIVE TRAINING. EDUCATE YOURSELF (AR600-20). Ignorance
and stubborn is a disease! 

 4–19.

 (Rescinded.)

 4–20. Hazing

 The Army has been and continues
to be a values-based organization where everyone is encouraged to do what is
right by treating others as they should
be treated—with dignity and respect. Hazing is fundamentally in opposition to
our values and is prohibited.

 a. Definition. Hazing is
defined as any conduct whereby one military member or employee, regardless of
Service or

 rank, unnecessarily causes
another military member or employee, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer
or be exposed

 to an activity that is cruel,
abusive, oppressive, or harmful.

 (1) Hazing includes, but is not
limited, to any form of initiation "rite of passage" or
congratulatory act that involves:

 physically striking another in
order to inflict pain; piercing another’s skin in any manner; forcing or
requiring the

 consumption of excessive amounts
of food, alcohol, drugs, or other substances; or encouraging another to engage
in

 illegal, harmful, demeaning or
dangerous acts. Soliciting or coercing another to participate in any such
activity is also

 considered hazing. Hazing need
not involve physical contact among or between military members or employees; it
can

 be verbal or psychological in
nature.

 (2) When authorized by the chain
of command and not unnecessarily cruel, abusive, oppressive, or harmful, the

 following activities do not
constitute hazing:

 (a) The physical and
mental hardships associated with operations or operational training.

 (b) Administrative
corrective measures, including verbal reprimands and a reasonable number of
repetitions of

 authorized physical exercises.

 (c) Extra military
instruction or training.

 (d) Physical
training (PT) or remedial PT.

 (e) Other similar
activities.

 (3) Whether or not such actions
constitute hazing, they may be inappropriate or violate relevant civilian
personnel

 guidance, depending on the type
of activities and the assigned duties of the employee involved.

 b. Scope. Hazing is not
limited to superior-subordinate relationships. It may occur between peers or
even, under

 certain circumstances, may
involve actions directed towards senior military personnel by those junior in
rank or grade

 to them (for example, a training
instructor hazing a student who is superior in rank). Hazing has at times
occurred

 during graduation ceremonies or
similar military "rites of passage." However, it may also happen in
day-to-day military

 settings. It is prohibited in all
cases, to include off-duty or "unofficial" celebrations or unit
functions. Express or

 implied consent to hazing is not
a defense to violation of this regulation.

 c. Command
responsibilities. Enforcement
of this policy is a responsibility of commanders at all levels. Commanders

 will devote particular attention
to graduation or advancement ceremonies as well as other occasions or settings
that

 might put Soldiers at risk for
voluntary or involuntary hazing. These situations will be supervised properly,
respectful

  AR 600–20 • 18 March 2008/RAR 4 August 2011

 of all participants, perpetuate
the best of the traditions that the Army embraces, and leave all participants
and spectators

 feeling proud to be a member of
or associated with the U.S. Army.

 d. Command
options. This
paragraph is punitive with regards to Soldiers. Violators of this policy may be
subject to

 UCMJ, ART. 92 (Failure to obey a
lawful general order or regulation). Other applicable UCMJ articles include
UCMJ,

 ART. 80 (Attempts), UCMJ, ART. 81
(Conspiracy), UCMJ, ART. 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment), UCMJ, ART. 124

 (Maiming), UCMJ, ART. 128
(Assault), UCMJ, ART. 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman), and

 UCMJ, ART. 134 (Drunk and
disorderly conduct, and/or Soliciting another to commit an offense). Civilian
employees

 who violate this policy may also
be subject to adverse action or discipline in accordance with applicable laws
and

 regulations.

Response by CPT Jacob Swartout made May 27 at 2014 10:12 PM

CPT Jacob Swartout — Tue, 27 May 2014 22:12:52 -0400

I used to see something similar for Soldiers that were speeding on post. They had to stand at the corner of a busy street holding up a sign to warn others to slow down. Last time I saw this was in 2007 and the Soldier was in full gear too with two other Soldiers standing behind him.

Response by Cpl David Garcia made May 28 at 2014 12:34 PM

Cpl David Garcia — Wed, 28 May 2014 12:34:51 -0400

I agree that professionalism has to be enforced. However, when I was a young Marine I was no different then the young warriors of today. I did things to enforce rules then that I would never do today. I look back in regret and sometimes wondered if I went too far. The difference between my correct actions to lower ranks is that I never had "trophies" social media was still new. We, meaning my platoon never felt the need to show the world our "ass" by posting things on Facebook, MySpace, or other sites. We policed our own and left our dirty laundry in the hamper.

Response by SFC David Bentley made May 14 at 2018 10:17 PM

SFC David Bentley — Mon, 14 May 2018 22:17:44 -0400

The last corrective training I gave out was for a SM that repeatedly didn't eat breakfast and failed to bring a MRE to the training area. Then had the audacity to go to a NCO from a sister unit to ask for food because I had left him in the motor pool without food. Of course that NCO gave my troop his lunch. However when I came back to check on my wayward Joe the NCO came to explain the situation. Long story short, I required my Joe to have a MRE in each cargo pocket and a full camel back on him for the remainder of the FTX (about 4 days). This wasn't so much a punishment but a reminder that solider care starts with yourself. I didn't make it public per say but I did inform other NCOs in the section that the water and MRE were inspectable items. I also made the point clear that going outside the chain for basic stuff was unacceptable.

Response by CW4 Craig Urban made May 17 at 2019 6:55 AM

CW4 Craig Urban — Fri, 17 May 2019 06:55:38 -0400

This is crap. No wonder we are going to require another form of the draft